News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

From my reading of Zwingli, he teaches that Christ did things such as suffer, die, feel hungry, etc. in his humanity, and then did miracles, etc. in his divinity. He seems to teach a separation between the natures in that they functioned independently from one another. I could be wrong in understanding him, but he sounds pretty Nestorian.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Wrong. Luther confessed the Christology contained in all of the seven councils.

From a study board in Singapore:

Lutheran Christology - The Two Natures of Christ

Since its beginning, Christianity has been combating one heresy after another on the two natures of Christ, as God and Man. Arianism denied that Christ was truly God. Docetism denied that Christ was truly man. Nestorianism taught that Christ not only had two natures, but was actually two persons. Monophysitism thought of Christ as having only one nature, a kind of composite God and man. All of these Christologies were declared by the Church to be heretical. The Council of Chalcedon held in A.D. 451 finally declared four negations - that the one person of Jesus Christ to be acknowledged in two natures - inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably.

I learned something new last week from Dr Joel Biermann of Concordia Theological Seminary in a lecture. He mentioned that Martin Chemnitz, a student of Luther and Melanchthon best articulates the Lutheran view in his work called "The Two Natures of Christ". Following the early Church, Chemnitz used three genera (plural of the Latin term genus) to describe how the two natures in the one person Jesus Christ relates to each other. These are very important as far as Lutheran Christology is concerned.

Genus Idiomaticum

Each nature has its own peculiar essential or natural attributes, which it retains even in the union, yet without conversion or confusion. The difference of the natures is not abolished because of the union, but rather the property of each nature is preserved intact and takes part in forming the one person. Example this can be seen when Jesus feeds the 5,000. This was wrought with the human hands of Jesus and his divine nature.

Genus Majestaticum

The divine nature of Christ in itself has received nothing from the hypostatic union, but his human nature has received and possesses innumerable supernatural gifts and qualities which are contrary to its nature and which are above every name and also above, beyond, and exceeding its own essential properties, which still, however, remain unimpaired. This can be seen in Jesus walking on the water, and walking through the wall and appear to his disciples in a locked room.

More importantly this genus starkly separates Calvinism from Lutherans in their view on the Lord's Supper. Lutherans maintained that this genus allowed Christ to be physically present with his body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. As Jesus is God, Jesus – as both God and man – can be omnipresent, even in Communion. Calvinists did not hold to this genus and so they asserted that Christ’s divine nature, and not his human nature, could be present in the Sacrament - the "Spiritual Presence" View. Their reasoning is that Christ’s human nature could not be present on an altar while also being present in heaven.

Genus Apotelesmaticum

The union of Christ’s two natures took place in order that the work of redemption, propitiation, and salvation might be accomplished in, with, and through both of His nature. This essentially meant that when Christ died on the cross and rose again, he did so in both natures. This genus is very important to understand. If Jesus died only in his divine nature, he could not have died. If Jesus died in his human nature only, his death could not have made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

Diagramatically, we can teach the above three genera by drawing a circle to represent Christ as a person and two square boxes below to represent his two natures. For Genus Idiomaticum there will be two arrows from the two square boxes going up to the circle. For Genus Majestaticum we will draw an arrow from the square box representing his divine nature going to the circle and then an arrow from the circle to the square box representing his human nature. Lastly, for Genus Apotelesmaticum we can draw two arrows from the circle to the two square boxes.

Posted 25th September 2010 by Martin Yee

While this is a modern short version of Lutheran Christology from the Saxon point of view (LCMS, WELS), it is how I remember it being taught.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

IIRC historical Calvinists accused Lutherans of Monophysitism. Also, there are some Protestants scholars who claim that Second Council of Constantinople and/or Byzantine Christology in general flirted with Monophysitism.

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

Ironically the Pastor at the Church I pray just gave a sermon on the two natures of Christ. Both fully man and fully human, though the focus for his sermon was more so on how Christ never used Divinity for Himself but only for others and how critical that is for our view of the Atonement.

My knowledge here is a little weak and pardon that I am not able to research and offer more precise information at the moment. Luther definitely taught Christology as Punch clarifies better than I could. (Nice post) I believe it was a matter of great dispute between Lutherans and Calvin. Not sure about Zwingli. I’m confident Anglicans also held true to Christology (confident, not definite) though I understand there were some slight differences of ‘focus’ between the Protestant view and Orthodoxy. I believe many of the 18th century reformers such as Wesley were fairly adamant about the two natures of Christ. Then again Wesley was originally Anglican with much influence from The Early Church Fathers and Orthodoxy so shouldn’t be too surprising I guess.

Good question though. In my ignorance I thought the majority of Protestant denominations believed this. So much to learn so little time it often seems. Lord have mercy!

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

IIRC historical Calvinists accused Lutherans of Monophysitism. Also, there are some Protestants scholars who claim that Second Council of Constantinople and/or Byzantine Christology in general flirted with Monophysitism.

This is not at all inaccurate. To Calvin, Luther was a Monophysite. To Luther, Calvin was Nestorian. It should also be pointed out that not ALL Lutherans accepted the Confessional Lutheran definition of Christ, even today. The Saxon branch influenced by Martin Chemnitz, himself an understudy of Luther and moreso Melanchthion, held a very EO Christology. This is the branch of Lutheranism that later became the LCMS and WELS in the United States. A good number of Churches that eventually made up the ELCA also would have held Chemnitzes Christology, but I do not see it so strong today.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome. He knew what he was saying.

Im digging deep into the recesses of my early schooling, but when we learned about the 1st council in school (I went to Lutheran School) we were specifically taught that the fathers used what scriptures they had and the old testament to come up with the findings of the council. There was no other determining factor. Now Im not saying that was the official teaching of the Lutheran Church, but since all materials and instruction had to be approved, one can only assume.

I'd also use Luther's own words on the councils:

Quote

Even though there were many thousand of them, they don not introduce anythingnew either in matters of faith or of good works; but they defend, as the highest judges andgreatest bishops under Christ, the ancient faith and the ancient good works in conformity withScripture.

Here's the kicker:

Quote

But if they establish anything new with regard to faith orgood works, you may rest assured that the Holy Spirit had no hand in it, but only the unholyspirit with his angels. For in that instance they must act without and outside Holy Scripture,indeed, in opposition to it....”

Luther, On the councils, 1539. Im sure its on the interwebs

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome.

A fransiscian monk? This is the first time I've heard that claim.

An Augustinian by day and a Franciscan by night, Luther was too humble to have the world know that he had renounced all property.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome. He knew what he was saying.

Im digging deep into the recesses of my early schooling, but when we learned about the 1st council in school (I went to Lutheran School) we were specifically taught that the fathers used what scriptures they had and the old testament to come up with the findings of the council. There was no other determining factor. Now Im not saying that was the official teaching of the Lutheran Church, but since all materials and instruction had to be approved, one can only assume.

I'd also use Luther's own words on the councils:

Quote

Even though there were many thousand of them, they don not introduce anythingnew either in matters of faith or of good works; but they defend, as the highest judges andgreatest bishops under Christ, the ancient faith and the ancient good works in conformity withScripture.

Here's the kicker:

Quote

But if they establish anything new with regard to faith orgood works, you may rest assured that the Holy Spirit had no hand in it, but only the unholyspirit with his angels. For in that instance they must act without and outside Holy Scripture,indeed, in opposition to it....”

Luther, On the councils, 1539. Im sure its on the interwebs

PP

It really depends whom you ask. Going back to my earlier point about the Oriental Orthodox, some of them would allow that some who accept the 7 ecumenical councils have orthodox Christology -- although I doubt that any OOs would include Protestants in that "some".

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome.

A fransiscian monk? This is the first time I've heard that claim.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

You will not see much on Christology during the period of the Reformation. There was too much discussing of where they differed from the RC Church to spend a lot of time expounding on where they agreed. The best place to look at the "confessional" Lutheran view of Christ would be Pieper's Christian Dogmatics. This is a four volume set that is highly regarded in the LCMS and WELS and is (or at least was) the primary textbook on dogmatics in the Seminaries.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Again, not totally true. I posted the Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist taken directly from the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles during the last thread about this topic. Not one Priest on this list posted a rebuttel. Neither did Patriarch Jeramias, if I remember what I read correctly.

...but they tried to teach that the interpretation should be different (especially in light of the solas).

How and where? I have never seen any treatise of councils by any kind of Protestants so I'm curious to know whether there are any. Most seem just accept the councils without having any idea what they actually teach.

Well, you gotta rememebr. Luther was a fransiscian monk before ditching Rome.

A fransiscian monk? This is the first time I've heard that claim.

He did attend a Franciscan School in his youth though... I think.

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Lets take some of the fundamentals about Gnosticism and see if it fits into Protestant thought. I'm going to quote a simple text from Wikipedia below.

Quote

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

To me this quote falls into complete harmony with what protestants promote as a means of salvation. The sacraments as Orthodox Christian view them are completely absent from protestant thought. Salvation therefore becomes intuitive knowledge based on an acceptance of a self proclaimed change of mind. Rendering the Church powerless in its function. Complete salvation having bin replaced with a salvation of the just the spirit and having shifting the churches roll into a future event.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Lets take some of the fundamentals about Gnosticism and see if it fits into Protestant thought. I'm going to quote a simple text from Wikipedia below.

Quote

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

To me this quote falls into complete harmony with what protestants promote as a means of salvation. The sacraments as Orthodox Christian view them are completely absent from protestant thought. Salvation therefore becomes intuitive knowledge based on an acceptance of a self proclaimed change of mind. Rendering the Church powerless in its function. Complete salvation having bin replaced with a salvation of the just the spirit and having shifting the churches roll into a future event.

Again you lump all Protestants into one group. In Lutheran dogma, Salvation cannot come without hearing the Word. Baptism as a Sacrament is a requirement of Salvation, except in limited circumstances. Participation in the Eucharist is also necessary for Salvation and "the forgiveness of sins", except in extreme circumstances. In other words, confessional Luthranism has NOTHING in common with what you quoted. Perhaps you should study Reformation Protestantism a bit more before posting such sweeping statements. I think that you will find that there were great differences between the major reformers, and lumping them into one basket can simply not be done. Probably the only thing they agreed on completely was the error of Rome (and even then there were those like Melanchtheon who were not even sure all the time of that).

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Lets take some of the fundamentals about Gnosticism and see if it fits into Protestant thought. I'm going to quote a simple text from Wikipedia below.

Quote

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

To me this quote falls into complete harmony with what protestants promote as a means of salvation. The sacraments as Orthodox Christian view them are completely absent from protestant thought. Salvation therefore becomes intuitive knowledge based on an acceptance of a self proclaimed change of mind. Rendering the Church powerless in its function. Complete salvation having bin replaced with a salvation of the just the spirit and having shifting the churches roll into a future event.

Again you lump all Protestants into one group. In Lutheran dogma, Salvation cannot come without hearing the Word. Baptism as a Sacrament is a requirement of Salvation, except in limited circumstances. Participation in the Eucharist is also necessary for Salvation and "the forgiveness of sins", except in extreme circumstances. In other words, confessional Luthranism has NOTHING in common with what you quoted. Perhaps you should study Reformation Protestantism a bit more before posting such sweeping statements. I think that you will find that there were great differences between the major reformers, and lumping them into one basket can simply not be done. Probably the only thing they agreed on completely was the error of Rome (and even then there were those like Melanchtheon who were not even sure all the time of that).

I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm a cradle OC and I never had to weave through the muddle to find my way here. I'm sure the social pressure allow can be overwhelming for a convert. It also sounds as if you are suggesting that some of these groups have somehow found there way and are an extension of the church? While I do believe that there is truth in many differing facets of Christian Socialism. I don't adhere to the same vision.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Lets take some of the fundamentals about Gnosticism and see if it fits into Protestant thought. I'm going to quote a simple text from Wikipedia below.

Quote

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

To me this quote falls into complete harmony with what protestants promote as a means of salvation. The sacraments as Orthodox Christian view them are completely absent from protestant thought. Salvation therefore becomes intuitive knowledge based on an acceptance of a self proclaimed change of mind. Rendering the Church powerless in its function. Complete salvation having bin replaced with a salvation of the just the spirit and having shifting the churches roll into a future event.

Again you lump all Protestants into one group. In Lutheran dogma, Salvation cannot come without hearing the Word. Baptism as a Sacrament is a requirement of Salvation, except in limited circumstances. Participation in the Eucharist is also necessary for Salvation and "the forgiveness of sins", except in extreme circumstances. In other words, confessional Lutheranism has NOTHING in common with what you quoted. Perhaps you should study Reformation Protestantism a bit more before posting such sweeping statements. I think that you will find that there were great differences between the major reformers, and lumping them into one basket can simply not be done. Probably the only thing they agreed on completely was the error of Rome (and even then there were those like Melanchtheon who were not even sure all the time of that).

I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm a cradle OC and I never had to weave through the muddle to find my way here. I'm sure the social pressure allow can be overwhelming for a convert. It also sounds as if you are suggesting that some of these groups have somehow found there way and are an extension of the church? While I do believe that there is truth in many differing facets of Christian Socialism. I don't adhere to the same vision.

No, I would not go that far. If only, though. Nothing would make me happier than to see the rest of my Lutheran brethren find the full truth, including my retired Lutheran minister father and my mother (who helped convert him from being a Baptist). They, and the Holy Spirit, instilled into me a love for God and for service to the Church at a very young age. I cannot remember a time that I was not in some kind of service to God. However, I do believe that there is ONE Church, and that is the Orthodox Church. It is not the Lutherans Christology that is goofed up as much as it is their Eclesiology. That is a complete mess. In any case, keep in mind that the original Lutheran reformers did not want to leave the RC Church, and kept a large part of RC doctrine. They were not about starting something new as they were trying to rid the RC Church from the abuses that were prevalent at the time. Since then, the RC have recanted some of the Reformation heresies and have generated new ones, and many of the Lutherans have fallen further and further away from their original ideals. In any case, I take great comfort in the verse "and other sheep have I that are not in this fold, and to them I go also."

« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 02:37:58 PM by Punch »

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Anyway, back on topic. Not entirely sure about the 'official' decisions of Protestants and everything, but from my time as a former 'non-denominational' Protestant, most of them seemed to profess some sort of Nestorianism where, in many cases, they demonize the flesh and act like Jesus' 'spirit' or Divine side was all that matters. Although, this is contrary to Orthodox theology because we believe that He was fully God and fully human so that the human flesh could be redeemed.

And so my question, how many of the Protestant Reformation leaders had an unorthodox Christology?

All of them...

Did they all really reject traditional Christology? What, then, were they?

They reject the Church. Our Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology. They are modern day Gnostics.

I am ignorant of how Christology is intertwined with Eucharistic theology in Orthodoxy. I simply have not learned enough about that yet. If you mean that because Protestants reject the Eucharist they reject ‘The Church’, while I do not share your view on that, I can certainly understand and respect how you might see it that way.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

Peace & Grace

Lets take some of the fundamentals about Gnosticism and see if it fits into Protestant thought. I'm going to quote a simple text from Wikipedia below.

Quote

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

To me this quote falls into complete harmony with what protestants promote as a means of salvation. The sacraments as Orthodox Christian view them are completely absent from protestant thought. Salvation therefore becomes intuitive knowledge based on an acceptance of a self proclaimed change of mind. Rendering the Church powerless in its function. Complete salvation having bin replaced with a salvation of the just the spirit and having shifting the churches roll into a future event.

Negative. I believe salvation is by the Grace of God, His Grace being completely sufficient and offered freely to all (as opposed to a select few given intuitive knowledge of some sort) whom seek Him in truth. However, to receive such Grace requires cooperation by our own free will. That sin causes a separation from God and can only be re-connected through Faith and Repentance which can only be obtained by God’s Grace. However, we must prepare our hearts to receive such Grace. In other words faith without works is indeed dead. All of this is by the gift of The Holy Spirit and begins and ends with what Wesley called a ‘personal relationship’ with Christ. This is a brief summary at best but enough to note a significant difference from Gnosticism I hope.

I would not say the sacraments of Orthodoxy are completely absent from Protestant thought, though it is fair to say they are viewed differently to say the least. We believe in and practice Baptism, anointing the ill, and marriage. Some such as confession is all but absent. Holy Orders in not recognized to my understanding. Others such as the Eucharist are very different and I’m beginning to see perhaps lacking the ‘fullness’ of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox sacrament of Chrismation does not exist as you see it, however the belief that we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and individually are all together as the Body of Christ certainly does.

It is only fair that I point out a major difference in that while these Sacraments, The ‘Ancient Church’, and he early Church Fathers are seen as Truth for the most part they are considered secondary to Scripture, God’s Grace, and the gift of The Holy Spirit.

Important to note Punch is correct in my opinion, in that there are so many different Protestant denominations with so many varying theologies it is impossible to generalize. I am only comfortable offering what I have learned of Wesleyan Theology as it has been revealed to me. Be there no doubt that some Protestants very well may lean more towards what you are claiming.

Please understand it is not out of conflict or challenge, but pure curiosity, which I ask if you would still consider me Gnostic?

In Christ,

Scott

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

I must also revisit and learn more of Gnosticism. The definition and theology as I currently understand it is one to which I, as well as any Protestants I know or pray with, would respectfully reject. If not adamantly reject I'm not sure what is meant by ‘modern day gnostic’ though.

There really isn't much behind this line of argument. I'd spend your time investigating something more worthwhile.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

Please understand it is not out of conflict or challenge, but pure curiosity, which I ask if you would still consider me Gnostic?

In Christ,

Scott

I have to say yes.

I'm not denying that there appears to be a good amount of truth to much of your post. But where you start to veer off is at the moment of truth. That is the Eucharist. To us the body and blood are a real reality and intertwined into our salvation and deification. We believe salvation is reached on earth here and now. We don't project it to the time of judgment. We don't believe the body of Christ is an event yet to be for-filled. We also believe the body of Christ is and are those who through a relationship with Christ have become sanctified in life and exist now along with those working towards salvation. Your thoughts are that people outside of the institutionalized confides of a church are sanctified through social events leading up to the life changing event. Your clergy are powerless so to speak and the sacraments are void of any life giving powers. You are projecting the church to be visible after the judgment. While we have a visible church now. While I would never confine gods moving grace to just the walls of Orthodoxy. I hope you can see that our vision of church is what separates us. That is why I have chosen to use the words gnosis for your belief system.

FWIW (granted I've never been either Orthodox or Protestant) I think the charge that Protestants are Gnostic is absurd and unworthy of an intelligent discussion -- which presumably is what we're trying to have.

Please understand it is not out of conflict or challenge, but pure curiosity, which I ask if you would still consider me Gnostic?

In Christ,

Scott

I have to say yes.

I'm not denying that there appears to be a good amount of truth to much of your post. But where you start to veer off is at the moment of truth. That is the Eucharist. To us the body and blood are a real reality and intertwined into our salvation and deification. We believe salvation is reached on earth here and now. We don't project it to the time of judgment. We don't believe the body of Christ is an event yet to be for-filled. We also believe the body of Christ is and are those who through a relationship with Christ have become sanctified in life and exist now along with those working towards salvation. Your thoughts are that people outside of the institutionalized confides of a church are sanctified through social events leading up to the life changing event. Your clergy are powerless so to speak and the sacraments are void of any life giving powers. You are projecting the church to be visible after the judgment. While we have a visible church now. While I would never confine gods moving grace to just the walls of Orthodoxy. I hope you can see that our vision of church is what separates us. That is why I have chosen to use the words gnosis for your belief system.

I really have to ask this: have you actually read any Gnostic writings, or are you getting your understanding of Gnostic thought from somewhere else?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

First, you did not answer my question, so I am assuming that the answer is "no". Second, so what if other members share that view. If 100 people believe something that is stupid, it does not make it any less stupid. It just means that there are 100 stupid people that believe the same thing.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Tzimis, I have to second Punch's question about what you even think "Gnostic" means.

In the first place, your primary point of reference seems to be Protestantism's lack of sacraments. Even ignoring Punch's perfectly valid point that you are taking the most radical form of Protestantism and applying it to all Protestants, this misses the fact that the Gnostics *had* sacraments. They practice baptism and communion, sometimes in the same form as Orthodox, sometimes with changes to the form and meaning.

In the second place, the 'Gnostic' title was given to them not because they believed in salvation through knowledge alone, but because they claimed *secret* Gnosis/knowledge. In his 'Refutation of heresies', St. Ireneus addressed many specifics of different Gnostic groups. But his most basic and broadest refutation was that there was no secret knowledge, that the Apostles had taught everything publicly from the beginning, and that therefore the Catholic Faith was that Faith which was publicly acknowledged everywhere. If anything, Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism, and certain streams of 'high-Church' Protestantism) in acknowledging a source of doctrine beyond the published Scripture (i.e., Tradition) is *closer* to Gnosticism than are the 'sola scriptura' Protestants who deny any authority beyond what is directly to be found in Scripture.

Finally, while there is some basis to accusations of (crypto-)Nestorianism among Protestants in their neglect of the physical side of man and his salvation, it is a major step from 'doesn't think the body is as important as they should' to 'actively despises the body' which is what Gnostic dualism was. The Gnostics didn't neglect the role of the physical in salvation--they got it completely turned around. Again, they were in a sense actually closer to Orthodoxy than the type of Protestant you are focusing on, because they were very conscious that the physical *had* to be dealt with in the process of salvation (of course, where they differed is that they thought the physical had to be actively escaped rather than actively sanctified).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

In the second place, the 'Gnostic' title was given to them not because they believed in salvation through knowledge alone, but because they claimed *secret* Gnosis/knowledge. In his 'Refutation of heresies', St. Ireneus addressed many specifics of different Gnostic groups. But his most basic and broadest refutation was that there was no secret knowledge, that the Apostles had taught everything publicly from the beginning, and that therefore the Catholic Faith was that Faith which was publicly acknowledged everywhere. If anything, Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism, and certain streams of 'high-Church' Protestantism) in acknowledging a source of doctrine beyond the published Scripture (i.e., Tradition) is *closer* to Gnosticism than are the 'sola scriptura' Protestants who deny any authority beyond what is directly to be found in Scripture.

I think this mischaracterises the tradition, but I'll forgive you because I am a fan of yours.

In the second place, the 'Gnostic' title was given to them not because they believed in salvation through knowledge alone, but because they claimed *secret* Gnosis/knowledge. In his 'Refutation of heresies', St. Ireneus addressed many specifics of different Gnostic groups. But his most basic and broadest refutation was that there was no secret knowledge, that the Apostles had taught everything publicly from the beginning, and that therefore the Catholic Faith was that Faith which was publicly acknowledged everywhere. If anything, Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism, and certain streams of 'high-Church' Protestantism) in acknowledging a source of doctrine beyond the published Scripture (i.e., Tradition) is *closer* to Gnosticism than are the 'sola scriptura' Protestants who deny any authority beyond what is directly to be found in Scripture.

I think this mischaracterises the tradition, but I'll forgive you because I am a fan of yours.

I would hope that no one would think that was actually an attempt to characterize Tradition, and if I phrased it badly I apologize. My point was simply that 'sola scripture' in its unremitting focus on the printed text is actually further from Gnostics and their esoteric gnosis than Orthodoxy is. If Orthodox is the straight path, Gnosticism goes left while Protestantism goes right.

I just think that an attempt to link Protestantism and Gnosticism is counter-productive. Any Protestant who actually knows anything about Gnosticism can then proceed to write off any criticism at all since it comes from such an obviously badly-informed source, while Orthodox waste their time arguing against errors Protestants don't actually hold--they have more than enough real areas for us to address.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

If anything, Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism, and certain streams of 'high-Church' Protestantism) in acknowledging a source of doctrine beyond the published Scripture (i.e., Tradition) is *closer* to Gnosticism than are the 'sola scriptura' Protestants who deny any authority beyond what is directly to be found in Scripture.

This. As a Protestant convert, I still run into problems with "tradition", and have actually heard the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) Churches called remnants of Gnosticm by Protestants for just this reason. I have an easier time with "tradition" now that I understand the conciliar nature of Orthodox dogma, but those that know me also know that I have a pretty touchy BS Detector and am always wary of "new" traditions, particularly the ones that are VERY local.

Also, when you actually read the Gnostic Gospels and Epistles and other writings, you can see that what they believed is entirely different than any main line denomination that I have studied. Now, are Protestants heretics? There is good evidence for that. But I am having a hard time seeing Protestants as Gnostic.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

First, you did not answer my question, so I am assuming that the answer is "no". Second, so what if other members share that view. If 100 people believe something that is stupid, it does not make it any less stupid. It just means that there are 100 stupid people that believe the same thing.

I gave you a quote that fit perfectly into protestant theology and you clearly ignored it. So why should I be lored by you into a a debate under your terms.

First, you did not answer my question, so I am assuming that the answer is "no". Second, so what if other members share that view. If 100 people believe something that is stupid, it does not make it any less stupid. It just means that there are 100 stupid people that believe the same thing.

I gave you a quote that fit perfectly into protestant theology and you clearly ignored it.

No, he did not. He addressed your attempt to lump all Protestants into one camp even though many clearly do not belong, and he did so by countering the substance of your argument that Protestants all follow a secret gnosis. In short, he refuted the claim you hoped to make by posting that quote.

Apparently I'm not the only one who believes this. Here are members that have similar views. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,589.0.html

First, you did not answer my question, so I am assuming that the answer is "no". Second, so what if other members share that view. If 100 people believe something that is stupid, it does not make it any less stupid. It just means that there are 100 stupid people that believe the same thing.

I gave you a quote that fit perfectly into protestant theology and you clearly ignored it.

No, he did not. He addressed your attempt to lump all Protestants into one camp even though many clearly do not belong, and he did so by countering the substance of your argument that Protestants all follow a secret gnosis. In short, he refuted the claim you hoped to make by posting that quote.